raw/legal data.csv

Context,Question,answer.text,answers.answer_start
"Even if an officer has no reason to
suspect that you have done anything
wrong, the officer can approach you to ask
questions and ask to search you or objects
in your possession (such as a briefcase). So
long as the officer doesn’t suggest that you
are legally compelled to talk or agree to a
search, the officer has done nothing wrong
(U.S. v. Drayton, U.S. Sup. Ct. 2002). At the
same time, a person is generally not required
to answer a police officer’s questions or
allow a police officer to conduct a search","Can a police officer stop me on
the street and question me even if
I have done nothing wrong?",Yes,0
"Unless a police officer has “probable cause”
to make an arrest or a “reasonable suspicion” to conduct a “stop and frisk”, a person has the legal right to walk away from a police officer. However, at the time of the encounter, there is no real way to tell what information the officer is using as a basis for her actions. In fact, an officer may have information that gives her a valid legal basis to make an arrest or to conduct
a stop and frisk, even if the individual is, in
truth, innocent of any wrongdoing. If that
is the case, an officer may forcibly detain
an innocent individual who starts to leave
the scene of an interview. Common sense
and self-protection suggest that people who
intend to walk away from a police officer
make sure that the officer does not intend to
arrest or detain them. A good question might
be, “Officer, I’m in a hurry, and I’d prefer not
to talk to you right now. You won’t try to stop
me from leaving, right?” If the officer replies
that you are not free to leave, you should
remain at the scene and leave the issue of
whether the officer had a legal basis for
detaining you for the courts to determine at
a later time.","Can I walk away from a police
officer who is questioning me?",a person has the legal right to walk away from a police officer unless police officer has “probable cause”,0
"You can halt police questioning at any
time merely by indicating your desire not to
talk further.","If I start to answer a police
officer’s questions, can I change
my mind and stop the interview?","Yes. You can halt police questioning at any
time merely by indicating your desire not to
talk further.",0
"An officer has the right to conduct a field
sobriety test of a suspected drunk driver. But
the driver has the right to refuse to answer
questions. In such a situation, the validity of
an arrest would depend solely on the person’s
driving pattern and performance on the field
sobriety tests. (See Chapter 24 for more on
drunk driving and field sobriety tests.)","An officer pulled me over for
suspicion of drunk driving and
questioned me about where I’d
been and what I’d had to drink.
Can I be arrested for refusing to
answer these questions?","No. An officer has the right to conduct a field
sobriety test of a suspected drunk driver. But
the driver has the right to refuse to answer
questions. In such a situation, the validity of
an arrest would depend solely on the person’s
driving pattern and performance on the field
sobriety tests. (See Chapter 24 for more on
drunk driving and field sobriety tests.)",0
"Even in the complete absence of probable
cause to arrest or suspicion to conduct a stop
and frisk, police officers have the same right
as anyone else to approach people and try to
talk to them. Of course, if the person refuses
to talk, the officer must stop.","If I don’t have to answer questions,
does this mean I can sue a police
officer for trying to question me?","No. Even in the complete absence of probable
cause to arrest or suspicion to conduct a stop
and frisk, police officers have the same right
as anyone else to approach people and try to
talk to them. Of course, if the person refuses
to talk, the officer must stop.",0
"A “Miranda warning”
is required only if a suspect is in custody
and the police intend to interrogate the
suspect. In other words, both “custody” and
“interrogation” have to occur for Miranda
rights to kick in. One upshot is that a
statement by a person who is not in custody,
or a statement made voluntarily rather
than in response to police interrogation, is
admissible in evidence at trial even though
no Miranda warning was given.","Doesn’t a police officer always
have to read me my “Miranda
rights” before questioning me?","No. A “Miranda warning”is required only if a suspect is in custody
and the police intend to interrogate the
suspect. In other words, both “custody” and
“interrogation” have to occur for Miranda
rights to kick in. One upshot is that a
statement by a person who is not in custody,
or a statement made voluntarily rather
than in response to police interrogation, is
admissible in evidence at trial even though
no Miranda warning was given.",0
"Police officers may be as interested
in clearing the innocent as in convicting
the guilty. People can often clear their
names as well as help the police find
the real perpetrators by answering a few
straightforward questions. For example,
assume that Wally, a possible suspect,
can demonstrate that “I was at dinner
with Andre” at the moment a crime was
committed. Wally both removes himself
as a suspect and enables the police to
concentrate their efforts elsewhere.
And legal rights aside, the truth on the
street is that people often can make life
easier for themselves by cooperating with
police officers—so long as they don’t have
a good reason not to. “Contempt of cop”
has resulted in the arrest and even physical
injury of more than one innocent person.
When innocent people who are pulled
over or questioned by police officers stand
on their rights too forcefully, events can
sometimes get out of control rather quickly.","Can it ever help me to answer a
police officer’s questions?","Yes. Police officers may be as interested
in clearing the innocent as in convicting
the guilty. People can often clear their
names as well as help the police find
the real perpetrators by answering a few
straightforward questions. For example,
assume that Wally, a possible suspect,
can demonstrate that “I was at dinner
with Andre” at the moment a crime was
committed. Wally both removes himself
as a suspect and enables the police to
concentrate their efforts elsewhere.
And legal rights aside, the truth on the
street is that people often can make life
easier for themselves by cooperating with
police officers—so long as they don’t have
a good reason not to. “Contempt of cop”
has resulted in the arrest and even physical
injury of more than one innocent person.
When innocent people who are pulled
over or questioned by police officers stand
on their rights too forcefully, events can
sometimes get out of control rather quickly.",0
"When police officers make an arrest, they commonly interrogate (question) the arrestee. Usually they are trying to strengthen the prosecution’s case by getting the arrestee to provide some evidence of guilt. An interrogation may have other purposes as well, such as developing leads to additional suspects. Chapter 1: Talking to the Police 21 By answering police questions after arrest, a suspect gives up two rights granted by the U.S. Constitution: • the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent; and • the Sixth Amendment right to have a lawyer present during the questioning. Although people are entitled to voluntarily give up these and other rights, the courts have long recognized that voluntariness depends on knowledge and free will, and that people questioned by the police while they are in custody frequently have neither. To remedy this situation, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) that information obtained by police officers through the questioning of a suspect in police custody may be admitted as evidence at trial only if the questioning was preceded by certain cautions known collectively as a “Miranda warning.” Accordingly, police officers usually begin their questioning of a person in custody by first making the following statements: • You have the right to remain silent. • If you do say anything, what you say can be used against you in a court of law. • You have the right to consult with a lawyer and have that lawyer present during any questioning. • If you can not afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you if you so desire. • If you choose to talk to the police officer, you have the right to stop the interview at any time. If a suspect is in police custody, it doesn’t matter whether the interrogation takes place in a jail or at the scene of a crime, on a busy downtown street, or in the middle of an open field. Other than routine automobile stops and brief on-the-street detentions, once a police officer deprives a suspect of freedom of action in any way, the suspect is in police custody and Miranda is activated.",What is a “Miranda warning”?,"When police officers make an arrest, they commonly interrogate (question) the arrestee. Usually they are trying to strengthen the prosecution’s case by getting the arrestee to provide some evidence of guilt. An interrogation may have other purposes as well, such as developing leads to additional suspects. Chapter 1: Talking to the Police 21 By answering police questions after arrest, a suspect gives up two rights granted by the U.S. Constitution: • the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent; and • the Sixth Amendment right to have a lawyer present during the questioning. Although people are entitled to voluntarily give up these and other rights, the courts have long recognized that voluntariness depends on knowledge and free will, and that people questioned by the police while they are in custody frequently have neither. To remedy this situation, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) that information obtained by police officers through the questioning of a suspect in police custody may be admitted as evidence at trial only if the questioning was preceded by certain cautions known collectively as a “Miranda warning.” Accordingly, police officers usually begin their questioning of a person in custody by first making the following statements: • You have the right to remain silent. • If you do say anything, what you say can be used against you in a court of law. • You have the right to consult with a lawyer and have that lawyer present during any questioning. • If you can not afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you if you so desire. • If you choose to talk to the police officer, you have the right to stop the interview at any time. If a suspect is in police custody, it doesn’t matter whether the interrogation takes place in a jail or at the scene of a crime, on a busy downtown street, or in the middle of an open field. Other than routine automobile stops and brief on-the-street detentions, once a police officer deprives a suspect of freedom of action in any way, the suspect is in police custody and Miranda is activated.",935
"If a police officer questions a suspect
without giving the suspect the Miranda
warning, nothing the suspect says can be
used against the suspect at trial. The purpose
of this “exclusionary rule” is to deter the
police from violating the Miranda rule,
which the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled is
required by the Constitution","What happens if a suspect who is
in custody isn’t given a Miranda
warning and answers a police
officer’s questions?","If a police officer questions a suspect
without giving the suspect the Miranda
warning, nothing the suspect says can be
used against the suspect at trial. The purpose
of this “exclusionary rule” is to deter the
police from violating the Miranda rule,
which the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled is
required by the Constitution",87
"assuming that the only reason that
a defendant’s statement is inadmissible
is the police Miranda violation and not
other police misconduct such as physical
coercion.
If the defendant gives testimony at trial
that conflicts with the statement made to
the police, the prosecutor can offer the
statement into evidence to impeach (attack)
the defendant’s credibility. Similarly, rules
in many jurisdictions allow prosecutors to
offer statements obtained in violation against
defendants in sentencing hearings (U.S.
v. Nichols, 4th Cir., 2006). For example,
assume that in an improperly-obtained
statement, a defendant admits to the police
that he was armed with a weapon when
he committed a crime. The defendant’s
confession may not be admissible at trial
to prove the defendant’s guilt, but the
prosecutor may offer it into evidence
during sentencing to try to obtain a harsher
sentence.
Also, the government may be able to use
the “fruits” of statements taken in violation
of Miranda. If police officers learn about
evidence by taking a defendant’s statement
in violation of Miranda, that evidence might
be admissible against the defendant.","Can the government ever use
statements against defendants if
they were obtained in violation
of Miranda?","Yes, assuming that the only reason that
a defendant’s statement is inadmissible
is the police Miranda violation and not
other police misconduct such as physical
coercion.
If the defendant gives testimony at trial
that conflicts with the statement made to
the police, the prosecutor can offer the
statement into evidence to impeach (attack)
the defendant’s credibility. Similarly, rules
in many jurisdictions allow prosecutors to
offer statements obtained in violation against
defendants in sentencing hearings (U.S.
v. Nichols, 4th Cir., 2006). For example,
assume that in an improperly-obtained
statement, a defendant admits to the police
that he was armed with a weapon when
he committed a crime. The defendant’s
confession may not be admissible at trial
to prove the defendant’s guilt, but the
prosecutor may offer it into evidence
during sentencing to try to obtain a harsher
sentence.
Also, the government may be able to use
the “fruits” of statements taken in violation
of Miranda. If police officers learn about
evidence by taking a defendant’s statement
in violation of Miranda, that evidence might
be admissible against the defendant.",0
"Talking
to the police is almost always hazardous to
the health of a defense case, and defense
attorneys almost universally advise their
clients to remain silent until the attorney
has assessed the charges and counseled the
client about case strategy.","After I’m arrested, is it ever a
good idea to talk to the police?","Not without talking to a lawyer first. Talking
to the police is almost always hazardous to
the health of a defense case, and defense
attorneys almost universally advise their
clients to remain silent until the attorney
has assessed the charges and counseled the
client about case strategy.",0
"Suspects do not need to use any magic words to indicate that they want to remain silent. Indeed, they don’t have to use any words at all. Arrestees may invoke their Miranda rights by saying things like the following: • “I want to talk to an attorney.” • “I refuse to speak with you.” • “Please leave me alone.” • “I don’t have anything to say.” • “I claim my Miranda rights.” If the police continue to question an arrestee who says anything like the above, the police have violated Miranda. As a result, nothing the arrestee says after that point is admissible in evidence.","How do I assert my right to
remain silent if I am being
questioned by the police?","Suspects do not need to use any magic words to indicate that they want to remain silent. Indeed, they don’t have to use any words at all. Arrestees may invoke their Miranda rights by saying things like the following: • “I want to talk to an attorney.” • “I refuse to speak with you.” • “Please leave me alone.” • “I don’t have anything to say.” • “I claim my Miranda rights.” If the police continue to question an arrestee who says anything like the above, the police have violated Miranda. As a result, nothing the arrestee says after that point is admissible in evidence.",0
"Miranda only applies to questioning by
the police or other governmental officials.","If my boss questions me about drug
use or my landlord asks me about
illegal activities in my apartment,
can my responses be used as
evidence against me if they didn’t
first give me a Miranda warning?","Yes. Miranda only applies to questioning by
the police or other governmental officials.",0
"Most people
instinctively understand the concept of
privacy. It is the freedom to decide which
details of your life shall be revealed to the
public and which shall be revealed only
to those you care to share them with. To
honor this freedom, the Fourth Amendment
protects against “unreasonable” searches
and seizures by state or federal law
enforcement authorities. However, the
Fourth Amendment does not protect against
searches initiated by nongovernmental
people, such as employers, landlords, and
private security personnel, unless the search
is made at the behest of a law enforcement
authority.","What are the search and seizure
provisions of the Fourth Amendment
all about?",They are about privacy.,0
"American judges have written
thousands of opinions interpreting the
Fourth Amendment and explaining what a
“reasonable” search is. But before getting
to that question, another question must be
answered first. Did the search in question
violate the defendant’s privacy in the first
place? Or more precisely, as framed by the
U.S. Supreme Court, did the defendant have
a “legitimate expectation of privacy” in
the place or thing searched? (Katz v. U.S.,
1967). If not, then no search occurred for the
purpose of Fourth Amendment protection. If,
however, a defendant did have a reasonable
expectation of privacy, then a search did
occur, and the search must have been a
reasonable one.","Are all searches subject to Fourth
Amendment protection?",No,0
"In Mapp v. Ohio (1961), the Supreme
Court established what has come to be
known as the “exclusionary rule.” This rule
states that evidence seized in violation of
the Fourth Amendment cannot be used as
evidence against defendants in a criminal
prosecution, state or federal. To this day,
some commentators continue to criticize the Mapp case on the ground that it unfairly
“lets the criminal go free because the
constable has erred.” But supporters of
Mapp argue that excluding illegally-seized
evidence is necessary to deter police from
conducting illegal searches. According to
this deterrence argument, the police won’t
conduct improper searches if the resulting
evidence is barred from the trial.","How can an illegal search affect
my criminal case?","This rule states that evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be used as
evidence against defendants in a criminal
prosecution, state or federal.",23
"A judge will exclude evidence that the
police seized or learned about as the result of an illegal search. But if a prosecutor
has enough other evidence to prove the
defendant guilty, the case can continue","If the police conduct an illegal
search, does the case against me
have to be dismissed?","No. A judge will exclude evidence that the
police seized or learned about as the result of an illegal search. But if a prosecutor
has enough other evidence to prove the
defendant guilty, the case can continue",0
"A well established rule is that a search
can’t be justified by what it turns up. If a
search is illegal to begin with, the products
of that search, no matter how incriminating,
are inadmissible in evidence.","If a police officer finds contraband
or evidence of crime in the course
of a search, does that make the
search valid even if it was initially
illegal?","No. A well established rule is that a search
can’t be justified by what it turns up. If a
search is illegal to begin with, the products
of that search, no matter how incriminating,
are inadmissible in evidence.",0
"Cases decided after Mapp have
established that the Fourth Amendment is
not a complete bar to the use of illegally seized
evidence. For example, a judge
may consider illegally-seized evidence
when deciding on an appropriate sentence
following conviction, and illegally seized
evidence is admissible in civil
cases and deportation cases. Also, in
some circumstances a prosecutor can use
improperly-seized evidence to impeach
(attack the credibility of) a witness who
testifies during a court proceeding.","Can illegally-seized evidence be
used in court for any purpose?","Yes. Cases decided after Mapp have
established that the Fourth Amendment is
not a complete bar to the use of illegallyseized
evidence. For example, a judge
may consider illegally-seized evidence
when deciding on an appropriate sentence
following conviction, and illegallyseized
evidence is admissible in civil
cases and deportation cases. Also, in
some circumstances a prosecutor can use
improperly-seized evidence to impeach
(attack the credibility of) a witness who
testifies during a court proceeding.",0
" The Fourth Amendment
provides rights for defendants that are binding
on every state. In addition, many state
constitutions contain language similar to that
in the Fourth Amendment, and a state can
validly interpret its own constitution to provide defendants with greater protection—but not
less—than the Fourth Amendment requires.","Do Fourth Amendment
protections apply in every state?","Basically, yes. The Fourth Amendment
provides rights for defendants that are binding
on every state. In addition, many state
constitutions contain language similar to that
in the Fourth Amendment, and a state can
validly interpret its own constitution to provide defendants with greater protection—but not
less—than the Fourth Amendment requires.",12
"the fruit of the poisonous tree
doctrine makes inadmissible
any evidence that police officers seize or
any information that police officers obtain
as a direct result of an improper search.
The tree is the evidence that the police
illegally seize in the first place; the fruit
is the second-generation product of the
illegally-seized evidence. Both tree and
fruit are inadmissible at trial. The fruit of the
poisonous tree doctrine removes what would
otherwise be a big incentive for police
officers to conduct illegal searches.","If the police illegally seize
evidence, can they use the
illegally-seized information to
find other evidence to use against
the defendant?","No, because of a legal rule colorfully
known as the fruit of the poisonous tree
doctrine. This doctrine makes inadmissible
any evidence that police officers seize or
any information that police officers obtain
as a direct result of an improper search.
The tree is the evidence that the police
illegally seize in the first place; the fruit
is the second-generation product of the
illegally-seized evidence. Both tree and
fruit are inadmissible at trial. The fruit of the
poisonous tree doctrine removes what would
otherwise be a big incentive for police
officers to conduct illegal searches.",0
"A search warrant is an order signed by a
judge that authorizes police officers to
search for specific objects or materials at
a definite location at a specified time. For
example, a warrant may authorize the search
of “the premises at 11359 Happy Glade
Avenue between the hours of 8 A.M. to 6
P.M.,” and direct the police to search for
and seize “cash, betting slips, record books,
and every other means used in connection
with placing bets on horses.” Police officers
can take reasonable steps to protect themselves
when conducting a search, such as handcuffing occupants while searching a
house for weapons",What is a search warrant?,"an order signed by a
judge that authorizes police officers to
search for specific objects or materials at
a definite location at a specified time",0
"The police can only search the place
described in a warrant, and usually can
only seize whatever property the warrant
describes. The police cannot search a house
if the warrant specifies the backyard, nor
can they search for weapons if the warrant
specifies marijuana plants. However, this
does not mean that police officers can only
seize items listed in the warrant. Should
police officers come across contraband or
evidence of a crime that is not listed in the
warrant in the course of searching for stuff
that is listed, they can lawfully seize the
unlisted items.","If the police have a warrant to
search my backyard for marijuana
plants, can they legally search
the inside of my house as well?","No. The police can only search the place
described in a warrant, and usually can
only seize whatever property the warrant
describes. The police cannot search a house
if the warrant specifies the backyard, nor
can they search for weapons if the warrant
specifies marijuana plants. However, this
does not mean that police officers can only
seize items listed in the warrant. Should
police officers come across contraband or
evidence of a crime that is not listed in the
warrant in the course of searching for stuff
that is listed, they can lawfully seize the
unlisted items.",0
"Normally, the police can only search the
person named in a warrant. Without probable
cause, a police officer cannot search other
persons who happen to be present at the scene of a search. However, if an officer has
reason to suspect that an onlooker is also
engaged in criminal activity, the officer might
be able to “frisk” the onlooker for weapons","The police had a warrant to
search a friend I was visiting, and
they searched me as well. Is this
legal?","No. Normally, the police can only search the
person named in a warrant. Without probable
cause, a police officer cannot search other
persons who happen to be present at the scene of a search. However, if an officer has
reason to suspect that an onlooker is also
engaged in criminal activity, the officer might
be able to “frisk” the onlooker for weapons",0
"You should ask to see a search (or arrest)
warrant. The officer may have no right to
enter your home without a warrant. If the
officer displays a warrant, allow the officer
to enter. While the officer is inside your
dwelling, observe the officer’s activities and
if possible make notes about them. The notes
can help you testify fully and accurately in
the event that you later want to challenge
the officer’s actions in court.
If the police officer does not have a
warrant, you may decide to allow the officer
to enter your dwelling anyway. You will
then have “consented” to the entry and you
will probably have no right to challenge the
search later in court.","If a police officer knocks on
my door and asks to enter my
dwelling, what should I do?",You should ask to see a search (or arrest) warrant,0
"If a defendant freely and voluntarily
agrees to a search, the search is valid and
whatever the officers find is admissible in
evidence.","If I agree to a search, is the
search legal even if a police
officer doesn’t have a warrant or
probable cause to search?","Yes. If a defendant freely and voluntarily
agrees to a search, the search is valid and
whatever the officers find is admissible in
evidence.",0
"Police officers do not have to
warn people that they have a right to refuse
consent to a search","Does a police officer have to
warn me that I have a right to
refuse to consent to a search?",No,0
" To constitute a valid consent to search,
the consent must be given “freely and
voluntarily.” If a police officer wrangles a
consent through trickery or coercion, the
consent does not validate the search. Often, a
defendant challenges a search on the grounds
that consent was not voluntary, only to have
a police officer testify to a conflicting version
of events that establishes a valid consent. In
these conflict situations, judges tend to believe
police officers unless defendants can support
their claims through the testimony of other
witnesses.","If a police officer tricks or coerces
me into consenting to a search,
does my consent make the search
legal?","No. To constitute a valid consent to search,
the consent must be given “freely and
voluntarily.” If a police officer wrangles a
consent through trickery or coercion, the
consent does not validate the search. Often, a
defendant challenges a search on the grounds
that consent was not voluntary, only to have
a police officer testify to a conflicting version
of events that establishes a valid consent. In
these conflict situations, judges tend to believe
police officers unless defendants can support
their claims through the testimony of other
witnesses.",0
"Merely opening the door to a police
officer does not constitute consent to entry and
search. Thus, whatever such a search turns
up would be inadmissible in evidence. Of
course, if contraband or evidence of a crime is
in “plain view” from the doorway, the officer
may seize it.","If I agree to open my door to talk
to a police officer, and the officer
enters without my permission
and searches, is the search valid?","No. Merely opening the door to a police
officer does not constitute consent to entry and
search. Thus, whatever such a search turns
up would be inadmissible in evidence. Of
course, if contraband or evidence of a crime is
in “plain view” from the doorway, the officer
may seize it. (See Section IV, below.)",0
"Many people are intimidated by police
officers, and may even perceive a request
to search as a command. However, so long
as an officer does not engage in threatening
behavior, judges will not set aside otherwise
genuine consents.","Is a search valid if the reason I
consent to it was because I felt
intimidated by the presence of
the police officer?","Yes. Many people are intimidated by police
officers, and may even perceive a request
to search as a command. However, so long
as an officer does not engage in threatening
behavior, judges will not set aside otherwise
genuine consents.",0
"The landlord is not considered to be
in possession of an apartment leased to
a tenant, and therefore lacks authority to
consent to a search of leased premises. The
same is true for hotel operators.","While I’m out, the landlord of the
apartment building where I live
gives a police officer permission
to search my apartment. Does
the landlord’s consent make the
search legal?","No. The landlord is not considered to be
in possession of an apartment leased to
a tenant, and therefore lacks authority to
consent to a search of leased premises. The
same is true for hotel operators.",0
"Police officers do not need a warrant to
seize contraband or evidence that is in plain
view if the officer is where he or she has a
right to be. An officer’s seizure of an object
in plain view does not violate the Fourth
Amendment because the officer technically
(and legally) has not conducted a search.","I agreed to talk to a police officer
in my house. The officer saw
some drugs on a kitchen counter,
seized them, and arrested me. Is
this legal?","Yes. Police officers do not need a warrant to
seize contraband or evidence that is in plain
view if the officer is where he or she has a
right to be. An officer’s seizure of an object
in plain view does not violate the Fourth
Amendment because the officer technically
(and legally) has not conducted a search.",0
"A police officer can seize objects in
plain view only if the officer has a legal right
to be in the place from which the objects
can be seen or smelled. If an officer has no
legal right to be where he or she is when the
evidence or contraband is spotted, the plain
view doctrine doesn’t apply.","If a police officer illegally enters
a house and observes evidence in
plain view, can the officer seize
the evidence?","No. A police officer can seize objects in
plain view only if the officer has a legal right
to be in the place from which the objects
can be seen or smelled. If an officer has no
legal right to be where he or she is when the
evidence or contraband is spotted, the plain
view doctrine doesn’t apply.",0
"Police officers do not need a warrant to
make a search “incident to an arrest.” After
an arrest, police officers have the right to
protect themselves by searching for weapons
and to protect the legal case against the
suspect by searching for evidence that the
suspect might try to destroy. Assuming that
the officer has probable cause to make
the arrest in the first place, a search of
the person and the person’s surroundings
following the arrest is valid, and any
evidence uncovered is admissible at trial.","Can an officer legally search me
after arresting me?","Yes. Police officers do not need a warrant to
make a search “incident to an arrest.” After
an arrest, police officers have the right to
protect themselves by searching for weapons
and to protect the legal case against the
suspect by searching for evidence that the
suspect might try to destroy. Assuming that
the officer has probable cause to make
the arrest in the first place, a search of
the person and the person’s surroundings
following the arrest is valid, and any
evidence uncovered is admissible at trial.",0
"To justify a search as incident to an
arrest, a spatial relationship must exist
between the arrest and the search. The
general rule is that after arrest the police
may search a defendant and the area within
a defendant’s immediate control. To conduct a search broader in scope
than a defendant and the area within the
defendant’s immediate control, an officer
would have to obtain a warrant.","If I’m arrested on the street
or in a shopping mall, can the
arresting officer search my
dwelling or car?","No. To justify a search as incident to an
arrest, a spatial relationship must exist
between the arrest and the search. The
general rule is that after arrest the police
may search a defendant and the area within
a defendant’s immediate control . For example,
an arresting officer may search not only a suspect’s clothes, but also a suspect’s wallet
or purse. If an arrest takes place in a kitchen,
the arresting officer can probably search
the kitchen, but not the rest of the house. If
an arrest takes place outside a house, the
arresting officer cannot search the house at
all. To conduct a search broader in scope
than a defendant and the area within the
defendant’s immediate control, an officer
would have to obtain a warrant.",0
"If the police arrest a suspect in or
around a car, they don’t need a warrant to
search its interior. They probably would need a
warrant to search the trunk, however.","If I’m arrested in my car, or
shortly after leaving it, do the
police need a warrant to search
the interior of the car?","No. If the police arrest a suspect in or
around a car, they don’t need a warrant to
search its interior. They probably would need a
warrant to search the trunk, however.",0
"If an officer lacks probable cause to
make an arrest, the invalid arrest cannot
validate a search. Any evidence found
during a search following an improper arrest
is inadmissible in evidence.","Is a search following an illegal
arrest valid? following an illegal
arrest valid?",No,0
"An officer can seize whatever evidence
a proper search incident to an arrest turns
up. So long as the search is valid, it doesn’t
matter if a seized object has nothing to do
with the crime for which the defendant was
arrested.","If an officer searches me after a
valid arrest and finds evidence
for an entirely different crime, is
the evidence admissible?",Yes,0
"A search is more extensive. An officer
conducting a full search can probe
extensively for any type of contraband or
evidence. A frisk allows officers only to
conduct a cursory pat-down and to seize
weapons, such as guns and knives or objects
that the officer can tell from a plain feel are
contraband","What’s the difference between a
search and a frisk?","A search is more extensive. An officer
conducting a full search can probe
extensively for any type of contraband or
evidence. A frisk allows officers only to
conduct a cursory pat-down and to seize
weapons, such as guns and knives or objects
that the officer can tell from a plain feel are
contraband",0
"The officer neither detained the defendant
nor conducted a search. The officer had the
right to pick up whatever the defendant tossed
away and make an arrest when the object
turned out to be illegal drugs","Seeing a police officer walking
in my direction, I tossed away a
packet of illegal drugs. Can the
officer pick it up and use it as
evidence against me?",Yes,0
"The courts generally don’t look at a
police officer’s private motivations. If the
police have valid reason to stop a vehicle,
even a nit-picky one like a broken rear
taillight, the stop is legitimate no matter
what a police officer’s “real” reasons. And, if the
initial stop is valid, any lawful search or
arrest that follows the stop is also valid.","Is it legal for the police to pull
a car over for a traffic violation
when the real purpose of the
stop is to find evidence of
criminal activity?",Yes,0
"People do not have a reasonable
expectation of privacy in garbage that
they leave out for collection, allowing police officers to search trashcans.","Do the police need a warrant to
search my trash?",No,0
"School
officials do not need probable cause or
search warrants; they can search students
and their possessions as long as they have a
reasonable basis for conducting a search and
as long as the search is appropriate based
on the age of the student and what’s being
sought.","Can public school officials search
students without a warrant?","School
officials do not need probable cause or
search warrants; they can search students
and their possessions as long as they have a
reasonable basis for conducting a search and
as long as the search is appropriate based
on the age of the student and what’s being
sought.",0
"An arrest occurs when a police officer takes
a person into custody. However, “arrest” is
not synonymous with being taken to jail.","When exactly is a person
under arrest?","An arrest occurs when a police officer takes
a person into custody. However, “arrest” is
not synonymous with being taken to jail.",0
"An alternative procedure—called “citation”—
exists in most states. In lieu of arresting
people for traffic offenses (like speeding) and
minor misdemeanors (such as shoplifting),
officers can issue citations. A citation is a
notice to appear in court. By signing the citation,
a person promises to appear in court on
or before the date specified in the notice in
exchange for remaining at liberty.","Can I be charged with a crime
without being arrested?","Yes, An alternative procedure—called “citation”—
exists in most states. In lieu of arresting
people for traffic offenses (like speeding) and
minor misdemeanors (such as shoplifting),
officers can issue citations. A citation is a
notice to appear in court. By signing the citation,
a person promises to appear in court on
or before the date specified in the notice in
exchange for remaining at liberty.",0
"To establish probable cause, officers must be able to point to objective factual circumstances that lead them to believe that a suspect committed a crime. Put differently, an arrest is valid so long as it is based on probable cause, even if the arrested person is innocent. In this situation, probable cause protects the police against a civil suit for false arrest if the charges are later dismissed or the defendant is acquitted at trial.","What exactly does “probable
cause” mean?","To establish probable cause, officers must be able to point to objective factual circumstances that lead them to believe that a suspect committed a crime. Put differently, an arrest is valid so long as it is based on probable cause, even if the arrested person is innocent. In this situation, probable cause protects the police against a civil suit for false arrest if the charges are later dismissed or the defendant is acquitted at trial.",0
"An arrest warrant is an official document,
signed by a judge (or magistrate), authorizing
a police officer to arrest the person or
persons named in the warrant. Warrants typically
identify the crime for which an arrest
has been authorized, and may restrict the
manner in which an arrest may be made","What exactly is contained in an
arrest warrant?","An arrest warrant is an official document,
signed by a judge (or magistrate), authorizing
a police officer to arrest the person or
persons named in the warrant.",0
"a warrantless arrest is
simply an arrest without a warrant. When
police officers make a warrantless arrest, a
judge does not have a chance to determine
ahead of time whether the police have
probable cause to make the arrest.",What is a warrantless arrest?,"As the name implies, a warrantless arrest is
simply an arrest without a warrant",21
"A police officer may use deadly
force to capture a suspect only if a suspect
threatens an officer with a weapon or an
officer has probable cause to believe that
the suspect has committed a violent felony. The police can also use deadly force to
protect the life of a third person. The police can also use deadly force to
protect the life of a third person. But police
officers cannot routinely use deadly force
whenever they seek to arrest a suspect for
committing a felony. The police should allow
some felony suspects to escape rather than
kill them.","Can the police legally use deadly
force to make an arrest?","A police officer may use deadly
force to capture a suspect only if a suspect
threatens an officer with a weapon or an
officer has probable cause to believe that
the suspect has committed a violent felony. ",0
"Motorists who drive off at high speed
instead of stopping in response to a police
officer’s blinking lights and siren often place
the lives of other drivers and pedestrians at
risk. To prevent harm to innocent bystanders,
police officers have the right to use deadly
force to put an end to the car chase and
arrest fleeing motorists.","Can police officers use deadly
force to terminate high-speed
car chases?",Yes,0